ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, May 8, 1996 TAG: 9605080011
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
POLITICAL CLASHES over raising the minimum wage and cutting the gasoline tax reinforce what everyone knows: Until November, everything coming out of Washington will be tainted even more than usual by crass calculations of electoral advantage.
Indeed, the tendency to wield office and power for political ends (either by giving money or cutting taxes) is accentuated this year because the two presidential candidates occupy the White House and Senate leadership. As a result, there's not much reason to expect agreement on a budget-balancing plan.
But neither is there reason to accept without protest the assumption that the politicians' and the nation's business don't intersect. This would be a nice time, and a welcome service in the battle against cynicism, for President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole to sit down and agree to the outlines of a seven-year fiscal plan.
Last month, Clinton suggested that broader negotiating teams renew efforts to plan a balanced budget. Dole's reply: "You mean more people bargaining? We need fewer. How about the two candidates?"
Whereupon a White House spokesman said: "We accept. The president is prepared to meet with Sen. Dole tomorrow." Which apparently took Dole aback. "We'll see how it looks," he muttered.
How it looks is, of course, like what it is: political gamesmanship.
Prospects for serious bargaining are further confounded, ironically, by the very reality that makes such a budget-balancing exercise necessary: the politics of entitlements.
Consider the 1996 budget, itself only recently completed with five months left in the fiscal year, after a shameful series of acrimonious standoffs, government shutdowns and temporary spending bills.
In this budget, discretionary spending - that is, for things other than entitlements or interest on the debt - was reduced by some $25 billion. Clinton was able to get $5 billion back that Republicans had wanted cut - for example, in funding for Head Start, clean-water programs and the Americorps national service initiative. But discretionary funds took a 13 percent hit, even as military spending - which accounts for half the discretionary budget - was rising.
A lot of these cuts are helpful and overdue. Elimination of 200 government programs in itself is cause for celebration. But let's be clear: The 1996 budget offers no guidance for the kinds of cuts needed to balance the budget in seven years.
The reason is that entitlements, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, account for two-thirds of federal spending. You can't balance the budget with cuts in discretionary accounts. Indeed, it is the projected swelling in entitlements, once Baby Boomers start retiring in the next century, that makes budget reform so important even as the current federal deficit continues to shrink.
Ah, yes - but look how much mileage Democrats have gotten in the past year scaring senior citizens about GOP plans to cut Medicare. To achieve a reasonable fiscal plan, both Clinton and Dole would have to stop, at least for the moment, using the budget to bash each other. They'd also have to be willing to take a political hit for controlling the growth in entitlement spending.
That's a lot to ask. But both men would take the hit simultaneously. And both could take credit for showing leadership. They are, after all, running for president.
LENGTH: Medium: 65 linesby CNB